The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I think splitting an empire after the capture of the capital should only happen to really huge empires.
I remember this from Civ 1, one of my first succesful games as emperor:
I was playing Earth map as Americans and decided to implement an "isolationist" policy: I occupied both N and S America, never bothered to visit th e"old" world (Europe/Asia/Africa) and kept battleships patrolling the shores, "just in case". When I built the Apollo Program I realised my only competition came from the Babylonians: they had about 2/3 of Asia and all of Africa. With such a huge empire, no wonder they launched the spaceship before me, so I decided it was time to introduce Babylon to the American "tourists" . To cut it short, 2 nukes and a minimal invasion army helped me invade Babylon and another town on the Mediterranean coast. Once I captured Babylon, the empire split, and all their cities in Africa declared independence as the Egyptian empire.
I guess my point is that huge empires like that should have a rather big chance of developing a separatist movement when the government fails to protect its citizens.
I would agree that revolutions is a good time for civs to split apart--maybe there is a 20% chance of each city other than your capital rebelling if a non-religious Civ converts to a more repressive government (and half this chance if converting to a more liberal government). Also, any distant cities that are "totally corrupt" (only one unit of commerce left) will DEFINITELY rebel. All cities that rebel during the same revolution will form a single new AI empire possessing all the tech, non-culture improvements (culture improvements are naturally destroyed except for Great Wonders, which will act like captured wonders), and garrisons they had before the rebellion.
Those who live by the sword...get shot by those who live by the gun.
Originally posted by cyclotron7
Traelin: We are in agreement that capturing a capital should be important, I just don't think a civil war is an appropriate or balanced way to make it important.
I do have a few issues with Civil War as it was implemented in Civ2 (and I think Civ).
1. There's no way it could occur unless there was an "available" Civ for the seceding portion of the empire to turn into. This is kinda silly, in that it would more or less reek of hardcoding (e.g., If "no available Civ" then "can't have a Civil War" )
2. It was way too easy to spawn a Civil War. I mean just by taking the capital??
3. The human is really the only one that would know how to focus an attack on a capital. The AI is only so capable of mounting a decent offensive as is. Only the human would know how to juke an AI opponent using staged attacks, then annihilating the capital.
I think Civil War would be cool, but it should be triggered by a COMBINATION of events, much like culture flipping has a variety of variables. Here's some of the things I think should trigger Civil War (note that when I say "opponent", I am referring to the person attempting to cause a Civil War):
1. Capital city capture;
2. Number of terrain squares owned by the capital and number of squares owned by any other Civ;
3. Number of opponent's units in empire;
4. Number of your units in opponent's empire;
5. Overall military strength ratio between yours and opponent's empires;
6. The overall tide of the war (unit win/loss ratio, number of cities lost/won, etc.);
7. Overall power score vs. opponent;
8. Perhaps also overall power score vs. everyone;
9. Influence of the capital city (how many Wonders did it have, what was its commercial and production strengths);
10. Number of cities in your empire;
11. Government type of your empire;
12. Overall measure of contentness in your empire (i.e., happiness of people as well as other measures, like how many luxuries you have).
These are all I can think of for now. But there is absolutely no way that the capturing of a capital city alone should trigger Civil War. However, I also think it's incredibly stupid that the AI automatically gets a new capital once its old one falls.
EDIT: BTW, can you guys tell I've given Civil War a bit of thought? I enjoyed the overall idea of it in past Civ games, for sure.
Originally posted by vmxa1
Well Britian set fire to the capitol and it did not cause a collapse. I doubt the civil war would have end as you suggest. The leaders would relocate back to NY and the original capitol and carried on. Since the North had a big edge in industry the out come was never in doubt.
Oh there's virtually no question the war would have been over if D.C. fell. Lincoln had an enormous force in the D.C. area just to protect it from such an invasion. In fact he stationed a ton of troops in Maryland just to prevent it from seceding and surrounding D.C. with Southern sympathizers.
If his garrison in D.C. would have fallen, the North would have been all but obliterated.
Originally posted by aahz_capone
I think the south would have to go all the way to philidelphia to end the civil war. The US gov would have just move their capital 'de facto' there.
It wasn't just a matter of picking up the capital and moving it. The main point of Gettysburg even being fought was that Lee knew if he could obliterate the Union there, he could sweep back down to the south and end it, likely in D.C. If D.C. had ever fallen, it would have been a serious strategic, military, and symbolic blow to the North.
I also think people beeing unhappy enough could ask for something specific. Like they could ask for less military economy and more civil economy. Or they could ask for democracy or any system, or anything else. You could of course try to calm them by giving some other stuff also.
To both Traelin and Dr. Cula, I definitely think that we are very much in agreement.
Civil War should be about TRIGGERS (man, how many times have I said that before ). If you capture a civs capital, it shouldn't spawn an automatic CW, but if that empire is huge, with a repressive government, extreme war weariness and massive corruption, then capturing their capital would allow opportunists within their cities-especially the outlying ones-to break away from their former masters!! A small, well-ordered democracy, on the other hand, would almost NEVER break apart
Additionally, cities with a greater than 50% foreign national population should also be a major risk of breaking away if any of the other triggers are met!
I just feel that this would add a whole new element of politics and strategy to the game-certainly if the AI knows how to exploit these factors as well .
Now, if only we could convince those Firaxis guys of the value of CW before the next XP comes out .
IMHO there should be civil wars, but only when triggered (don't have many triggers to add)
regions that would have higher risk:
1-seperate areas (like on earth, French having cities in America, or Africa; a group of cities not in the same territory (within same border) as the capital)
2-far away areas (those points add up )
3-Groups of cities from now obliterated civs/in the starting region of these civs
and i think a bit of the Capital-capture leads to civ.war "demand" is because capturing the capitol currently has very low inpact on the losing Civ (they get a new capitol right away..)
Originally posted by Homunculus
IMHO there should be civil wars, but only when triggered (don't have many triggers to add)
regions that would have higher risk:
1-seperate areas (like on earth, French having cities in America, or Africa; a group of cities not in the same territory (within same border) as the capital)
2-far away areas (those points add up )
3-Groups of cities from now obliterated civs/in the starting region of these civs
and i think a bit of the Capital-capture leads to civ.war "demand" is because capturing the capitol currently has very low inpact on the losing Civ (they get a new capitol right away..)
just my 2 cents.
Nice! (for a settler - kidding )
A city that would rebel would have an impact on nearby cities that would more easily join this city.
Just thought to THIS (miam miam ):
Communications:
Maybe also we could think to some problems linked to communications... I mean imagine Romans that had such a big territory that an order could take months to get there, and people were very different since they couldn't communicate that much and get a common identity, like now with television/radio/internet and people going from a place to the other with cars! USA has a big territory but with modern technology, no problem.
Homunculus is right. I would definitely not be such a strong advocate of the Capitol-capture trigger for CW if the loss of the capital had, at least, some major negative consequences for the nation that looses it!! At the very least, it should cost a small fortune to move your palace in the same turn you lose your capitol (with the cost reduced if you have FP Small Wonder). If you can't move the capitol that turn, then you you should have to build the palace again-from scratch! Until a new capitol exists, there should be increased unhappiness, corruption and war weariness in all your other cities (which would, of course, increase the chance of CW in those cities ). Certainly not this "oh, you've just lost your capitol, well here's another one for you!!"
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Homunculus is right. I would definitely not be such a strong advocate of the Capitol-capture trigger for CW if the loss of the capital had, at least, some major negative consequences for the nation that looses it!! At the very least, it should cost a small fortune to move your palace in the same turn you lose your capitol (with the cost reduced if you have FP Small Wonder). If you can't move the capitol that turn, then you you should have to build the palace again-from scratch! Until a new capitol exists, there should be increased unhappiness, corruption and war weariness in all your other cities (which would, of course, increase the chance of CW in those cities ). Certainly not this "oh, you've just lost your capitol, well here's another one for you!!"
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
I do not think capitols have such an importance for a few reasons. We have to know that even if a capitol is taken, it doesn't stop from getting a temporarily capitol from where directions are given. In ancient times, maybe a little harder, but in modern times it's already planified and all. Of course it may take a little time to bring it back to work softly though (getting the people needed, etc.). The real problem is another one:
- moral of people and troops is down
- a certain disorganization may happen (the time taken to reorganize)
- centralization is less efficient for a while (time to rebuild some links between cities if needed, but also psychologically)
If USA would suddenly lose Washington DC, be sure the president and all would rapidly be reorganized. The temporary direction center may even be a plane... But it just wont have exactly the same team to work with (so reorganizing).
To get exactly the same efficiency with the new capitol, a few factors will be needed:
- time to get a reorganized administration
- officially declaring it as new capitol
- new palace a symbol of the capitol (even if it comes after the official declaration)
- little time for people to accept it
I see changing government like a civil war.. a revolution.
Maybe after changing government, some of your cities change to a new civ, like a civ2 civ war, they are at war with you, and have the old government.
This might be better than curent revolutions, as the revolution time can be reduced(its too long) and now you have to reconquer rebel cities.
Changing government is just changing government. It's not a part that want to make secession. france, Great-Britain, USA and many others changed government. A secession happens when a part of the population wants to separate itself from the other part, it's a huge difference.
. To cut it short, 2 nukes and a minimal invasion army helped me invade Babylon and another town on the Mediterranean coast. Once I captured Babylon, the empire split, and all their cities in Africa declared independence as the Egyptian empire. 
)
I enjoyed the overall idea of it in past Civ games, for sure.
). If you capture a civs capital, it shouldn't spawn an automatic CW, but if that empire is huge, with a repressive government, extreme war weariness and massive corruption, then capturing their capital would allow opportunists within their cities-especially the outlying ones-to break away from their former masters!! A small, well-ordered democracy, on the other hand, would almost NEVER break apart
.
.
Tweet
Comment